And the trainwreck keeps going and going. Artistic vision, HA! Just like the ME3 ending, right? If you wanted to implement interconnected cities you could've done it in offline mode as well. Everything said by EA or Maxis just seems to be digging an even deeper grave.

This, right here, was where I knew we were headed the moment they announced Always-Connected. Which, as an aside, was the moment I decided not to buy.

I'm not some torch-and-pitchfork hater of EA; I try to judge every title that hits shelves on its own merits, not the merits of the company in question. But that said, I don't FORGET the names on the box, either. Ubisoft still gets a fair bit of second-thoughts from me before any purchase because of how they treated the PC side of their consumer base, for example. And with Diablo III, I more or less shelved any interest in Blizzard's works for the foreseeable future because I happened to be a Diablo fan who was 'playing it wrong' (ie, I liked single player only, thanks).

But if being a dick or refusing to let me just have my game unsullied by online malarky was enough to turn me off THOSE guys, what EA/Maxis have been up to should be enough to turn me off electronic devices in general. Relying on external elements to run one's game rarely works out well. Servers overload. They lag. They break. They need to go down for maintenance. They rely on both my connection and yours not sucking. And at the end of the day, they rely most of all on you not deciding in a year or two to just pull the servers entirely and let the game die. Speaking as someone who doesn't trade or sell his games and has busted out NES games for especially nerdy parties, the idea of me investing at-launch cost for a game that is so dependant on online play that I have no way of knowing if in two years I could even USE it... no.

I hope, I pray, that someone is getting the boot over all this and that someone in a position of authority at EA is taking the right lessons from this. But even if they do, I question whether it will be enough at this point. Again speaking as someone who never really had a hate-on for EA, what I have now instead is healthy distrust in their products and capabilities. I'm much more likely to hold off and wait for reviews and fan reaction in future before even glancing their way. I am a 100%-certified lost sale for all opening weekends until proven otherwise, and in this day and age that time period is obscenely vital for companies.

Obviously, I can't speak for everyone. But I have to imagine that without changes there is a tipping point where people will respond to 'EA' the same way people respond in the theatre to a trailer that shows M. Night Shamalyan's name. You can burn folks only so much, provide crappy service only so many times, before people start to walk away. And while I'm willing to walk back if you prove yourself, I question how many others can be bothered to when the industry is pumping out games left, right, and center for all genres anyway.

And to the inevitable person who will jadedly say the population will just eat up whatever EA tosses out there and this doesn't matter? Warfighter. Thank you.

I'm not going to whine about always on DRM. If I like the game and have friends that are going to play too, then always on DRM doesn't really matter much to me. There are games (like SimCity) that should really have a single player mode (seems like a good way to waste time on a flight, for example), but if I'm going to play with friends most of the time I will probably get my money's worth in game time.

With that said... if you're going to go the always on DRM route, you better make it work correctly. Always on DRM was the most controversial aspect of the new Sim City, so how could they have missed that the game would perform so poorly online? While some people were never going to buy the game because of always on DRM, I'm sure there were a bunch of potential players on the fence waiting for first reviews (myself included). Many of us were probably saying, "I'm really not fond of the DRM, but if it gets good reviews, I'll buy it."

Always on DRM was the game's most glaring "defect" before launch... and it was even more defective than we knew. EA doesn't deserve my money -- not because of the always on DRM, but because they knew this design choice was under the microscope and they still failed miserably.

Theysaid:Always on DRM was the game's most glaring "defect" before launch... and it was even more defective than we knew. EA doesn't deserve my money -- not because of the always on DRM, but because they knew this design choice was under the microscope and they still failed miserably.

The fundamental issue I have with this is that it goes beyond the digital age of media. This is corporate control of a product that they sold to you. This isn't like Steam. Steam has an offline mode. Steam allows you to play without having to authenticate every twenty minutes. In addition, the structure of always online DRM means that, when the server goes down, so does the game. Forever. I still have a copy of SIMCITY from 2000. I can install it right now.

This is worse than other games that have DRM that is not updated for the newer OSs, making it impossible to play the game simply because the DRM version does not work with an newer OS, even though the game works great(if you *alter* the install).

As I mentioned in my earlier posts, the SOLE reason EA wanted this mode is because they thought they were going to rake in millions by using a sales microtransactions model where the prices were as high as 14.99 for a single building.

They thought they could half-ass it and push this through as rapidly as possible. What is astounding is how absolutely incompetent they are. If they had any shred of intellect, they MIGHT have pulled this off. They MIGHT have been charging people stupid sums of money for a SINGLE BUILDING. They almost DEFINITELY would have gotten away with it if the game was free to play.

Unfortunately, their greed is overshadowed only by their blind incompetence and brilliant IPs must suffer. But hey, this means that new IPs and indie titles may flourish, so there's that.

They thought they could half-ass it and push this through as rapidly as possible. What is astounding is how absolutely incompetent they are. If they had any shred of intellect, they MIGHT have pulled this off. They MIGHT have been charging people stupid sums of money for a SINGLE BUILDING. They almost DEFINITELY would have gotten away with it if the game was free to play.

Unfortunately, their greed is overshadowed only by their blind incompetence and brilliant IPs must suffer. But hey, this means that new IPs and indie titles may flourish, so there's that.

All this boils down to is the "evolution" in gaming that so many keep spouting on about.And that "evolution" is "less for more".

Less core content, more DLC. Less community involvement and mods, more content from the publisher.At this stage, Piracy provides more of a quaint pariah for justification than anything; I'd even call it a convenient excuse to enforce such price-gouging practices.

But the worst part: Gameplay design is the first to suffer.Diablo 3 was just the start, with its watered down depth, increased grind and near-total emphasis on gear over player ability.

SimCity is lazily programmed and is easily the worst simulation in the franchise.

Now that the offline functionality has been proven beyond any doubt, I think gamers need to keep up the pressure; bring along petitions, boycotts, etc, and demand that EA/Maxis bring out an offline mode in a future update. Forcing players to play a certain way really isn't on, and furthermore, alienates players that don't necessarily have a good enough internet connection, such as those in less developed nations.

Atmos Duality:Less core content, more DLC. Less community involvement and mods, more content from the publisher.

See, part of this would be fine, if they took DOTA 2's model; if they made a free to play game and pretty much handed off the creative control over the non-essentials, they could have pulled it off. Instead, EA seems absolutely determined to make all the mistakes and learn nothing. Determined. They learned nothing from Valve and Steam with Origin and they learned nothing from Blizzard and Diablo III and SimCity. They are just a terribly run company.

What bothers me is that people seem to completely ignore this trend and continue to not only support the publisher with preorders but also support them vocally.

You can't be this passive. You can't be this complacent. You just can't.

This, right here, was where I knew we were headed the moment they announced Always-Connected. Which, as an aside, was the moment I decided not to buy.

I'm not some torch-and-pitchfork hater of EA; I try to judge every title that hits shelves on its own merits, not the merits of the company in question. But that said, I don't FORGET the names on the box, either. Ubisoft still gets a fair bit of second-thoughts from me before any purchase because of how they treated the PC side of their consumer base, for example. And with Diablo III, I more or less shelved any interest in Blizzard's works for the foreseeable future because I happened to be a Diablo fan who was 'playing it wrong' (ie, I liked single player only, thanks).

But if being a dick or refusing to let me just have my game unsullied by online malarky was enough to turn me off THOSE guys, what EA/Maxis have been up to should be enough to turn me off electronic devices in general. Relying on external elements to run one's game rarely works out well. Servers overload. They lag. They break. They need to go down for maintenance. They rely on both my connection and yours not sucking. And at the end of the day, they rely most of all on you not deciding in a year or two to just pull the servers entirely and let the game die. Speaking as someone who doesn't trade or sell his games and has busted out NES games for especially nerdy parties, the idea of me investing at-launch cost for a game that is so dependant on online play that I have no way of knowing if in two years I could even USE it... no.

If we could get thumbs up both mine would be pointing straight up at you. Well said! I am the exact same as you in how you feel. I judge each game by its own merits and I don't forget the major fuck ups they do.

Ubisoft has done a lot of damage with PC players so I normally heavily research their games and if I like it I still buy it discounted heavily. They have thankfully wised up a bit recently and are slowly working to make things better. I actually am starting to like the idea of Uplay because it is not an exclusive BS crap like origin. It is still an extra thing to log in but as long as I can put it in my steam library I am less inclined to resist a buy on Uplay alone.

Blizzard had my complete trust until diablo 3. Because of all the BS they pulled I am not buying HoTS (a game I would normally buy day 1) and instead am watching a Let's play for the story and will probably get the game whenever it goes on sale if at all.

EA has lost the most business with me these past few years due to their constant stupidity. I am not even pitchfork mad at them anymore I just want them to fuck off for 2 seconds so I can enjoy one of their dwindling catelog of good games. Let's see due to origin, always on DRM, and general fuckary I have not bought ME3, BF3, DS3, and Simcity (off the top of my head).

Isn't it funny and sad how this is one of the best generations in terms of variety and quality of games yet it is also the worst generation because of all the unnecessary bullshit they put with these amazing games?

See, part of this would be fine, if they took DOTA 2's model; if they made a free to play game and pretty much handed off the creative control over the non-essentials, they could have pulled it off. Instead, EA seems absolutely determined to make all the mistakes and learn nothing. Determined. They learned nothing from Valve and Steam with Origin and they learned nothing from Blizzard and Diablo III and SimCity. They are just a terribly run company.

What bothers me is that people seem to completely ignore this trend and continue to not only support the publisher with preorders but also support them vocally.

You can't be this passive. You can't be this complacent. You just can't.

Valve is devilishly clever like that, but that's because unlike EA, Valve started out as community modders for Doom and Quake (I was part of that mod community; I bug tested Action Quake2, the literal prototype for Counterstrike).They know just how powerful community involvement is. Team Fortress 2 was a raving success well before it went F2P; it wasn't flash-in-the-pan Shooter #348 that people play for a month and then swiftly forget.

Where EA sees marks and Preorder-suckers to be milked and neglected...Valve sees enthusiasts. Not because of any wishy-washy "for teh arts" reason, but because that's how they got started.I shouldn't have to point out just how successful a business model it is. It makes Online-Only/Service-Centric games like DotA2 worthwhile.

For all the evil genius (and potentially dangerous) marketing strategies Valve employs I'll grant them this:They don't just slapdash the game together (SimCity) or make brutal concessions on the gameplay (Diablo 3) because they're too busy optimizing the milkers for their digital cattle ranch. Valve's gameplay is at least mechanically functional, and to date, ALWAYS pretty good to start with.

What does EA offer? What does SimCity offer?Multiplayer? You aren't even interacting much with the other players. You can send cash and resources; but when a city isn't being used, its assets are frozen in time and at best, is providing a passive effect for the rest of the region.

And outside of that interaction, the rest of the gameplay is strictly WORSE than previous SimCity games.Now hackers/modder have discovered features and tools from previous SimCity games in the game client ready to be drip-fed to the players. (There's no other logical for them to be in the game client otherwise, save astonishing stupidity)

Yet EA is expecting people to accept all of this bullshit, always online, with a smile and an open wallet.There is no question in my mind that this was exploitation first, and a game second.

If that's truly the "evolution of gaming" I keep hearing touted, then I want it terminated.This serves no purpose except to push the medium further into the cesspit of LCD-centric stagnation.

Mechalynx:Vision, my foot. Release a legit single player patch and see if anyone sticks around for your MMO crap.

I wonder, are the folks at the helm are really this detached from reality or are they consciously working towards the destruction of their brand?

The problem here is that too many game developers have formed this unhealthy obsession with trying to force video games to be "social."

Just so they can go to the critics and say, "See!? See!? Video games don't breed anti-social behavior! See! They're playing together! See!?" It's rather, for the lack of a better word, pathetic if you think about it.

The funny part is that video games are the only medium that's trying so hard to be "social."

Books aren't social. Just go to a library, or bookstore, and take note of the people reading. You'll notice the one thing they're not doing: socializing! They're not socializing. In fact, socializing is actually discouraged. The whole librarian going "Shhhh!" thing.

Movies aren't social either. Just go to a movie theater and take note of the people watching. You'll notice the one thing they're not doing: socializing! They're not socializing. In fact, socializing is actually discouraged, greatly! The whole "NO TALKING during the movie!" rule.

Plays aren't social either. Just go to a stage theater and take note of the people watching. You'll notice the one thing they're not doing: socializing! They're not socializing. In fact, socializing is actually discouraged, greatly! The whole "NO TALKING during the performance!" rule. (Pretty identical to movies in this regard.)

The only medium that could be considered "social" is music. However, with the exception of concerts, whenever music is a part of a social activity it's just a background role. It's also perfectly acceptable to listen to music privately.

So why are developers trying so hard to make video games a "social activity"? To combat the false, manufactured bad reputation the news media outlets have conjured up in their vain attempt to discredit games? Why? Such slander was already failing! There's no need to combat something that is not a threat!

Game developers need to stop with this obsession with trying to convince people, who will never be convinced, that video games are a "social activity." All it's doing is giving the video game haters the sense they they're right. It's not pushing the industry forward. It's not doing anyone any favors. It needs to stop.

Stop trying to force people who want to be left alone to socialize. It just does more harm than good.

Thankfully, it seems Sony has realized this with the PS4. Here's hoping the developers realize this with the PS4 games.

`

P.S.: If you think I'm going to buy the whole statement claiming EA had nothing to do with the always-online DRM decision, think again!

omicron1:*ahem*I believe I speak for 3.5 million disenchanted players when I say this to you, EA: YOUR VISION BLOODY WELL SUCKS.

Nobody but YOU wanted an online city-builder. The core CB audience is NOT the same audience that enjoys Facebook and social media - and fie on you for erroneously conflating the two. I hope you learned your lesson.

Some of us did want an online city builder........ as an optional EXTRA, not EAs bullcrap excuse for DRM. Ah well, to the blacklist EA goes.

1337mokro:Actually yes. You are hearing from people trading and communicating in the limited 4 player Coop sections. The map may say 16 but there are no rails between those cities and unless you download the debugmode mod you won't be able to change the rails/highway layout to connect all 16.

I have to butt in here to say that you are actually (KIND OF) wrong. I thought the same thing at first, and was about ready to smash my laptop screen in, because myself and 5 other mates (plus more) were all going to be in same region, so the idea of it just being four player maps mashed together to give off the appearance of a multiplayer map.

Now, originally before we got the game, my friends and I thought that it was like a grid based game, AKA, if you are next to or diagonal to a city/great work, you could access it and use it. See, we were all planning it, you know, one of us makes the services, I would be running the police/fire/ambulance etc. and a mate was running casinos blah blah blah.

So we thought of the problem of getting resources or whatever from one place to the next. Then we thought of way stations. So we send shit to one city, and they buy our, coal or whatever, but they don't keep it. They pass it on to the guy who needs coal and he pays them. So in the end, the guy gets his coal and he doesn't have to be next to us.

Then I played and found out about rails, rivers and roads. And I raged. Very hard. It was actually midway through a video that I was making that I found out something amazing. ALL of the cities CAN be linked. But you have to work it out.

I'm going to use Viridan woods as an example, as that's the one I play. I found out that four of us are linked by road together, then 2 of us were linked by water to another cluster, and 3 of us were linked to 2 cities from another cluster. So, one corner of the map can send rails to 2 cities and ships to 1 (or maybe it was 2...), which can then connect to the final cluster.

That's where our idea of waystations came back in, as in, someone could send say... Marcus some coal by rail, who then sends it to me by road, then I ship it to Lachlan who finally sends it by road to Scott, who then burns it, pollutes his city and dies.

So yes, they can all be interconnected, you just have to really work together.

Mechalynx:Vision, my foot. Release a legit single player patch and see if anyone sticks around for your MMO crap.

I wonder, are the folks at the helm are really this detached from reality or are they consciously working towards the destruction of their brand?

The problem here is that too many game developers have formed this unhealthy obsession with trying to force video games to be "social."

Just so they can go to the critics and say, "See!? See!? Video games don't breed anti-social behavior! See! They're playing together! See!?" It's rather, for the lack of a better word, pathetic if you think about it.

The funny part is that video games are the only medium that's trying so hard to be "social."

Books aren't social. Just go to a library, or bookstore, and take note of the people reading. You'll notice the one thing they're not doing: socializing! They're not socializing. In fact, socializing is actually discouraged. The whole librarian going "Shhhh!" thing.

Movies aren't social either. Just go to a movie theater and take note of the people watching. You'll notice the one thing they're not doing: socializing! They're not socializing. In fact, socializing is actually discouraged, greatly! The whole "NO TALKING during the movie!" rule.

Plays aren't social either. Just go to a stage theater and take note of the people watching. You'll notice the one thing they're not doing: socializing! They're not socializing. In fact, socializing is actually discouraged, greatly! The whole "NO TALKING during the performance!" rule. (Pretty identical to movies in this regard.)

The only medium that could be considered "social" is music. However, with the exception of concerts, whenever music is a part of a social activity it's just a background role. It's also perfectly acceptable to listen to music privately.

So why are developers trying so hard to make video games a "social activity"? To combat the false, manufactured bad reputation the news media outlets have conjured up in their vain attempt to discredit games? Why? Such slander was already failing! There's no need to combat something that is not a threat!

Game developers need to stop with this obsession with trying to convince people, who will never be convinced, that video games are a "social activity." All it's doing is giving the video game haters the sense they they're right. It's not pushing the industry forward. It's not doing anyone any favors. It needs to stop.

Stop trying to force people who want to be left alone to socialize. It just does more harm than good.

Thankfully, it seems Sony has realized this with the PS4. Here's hoping the developers realize this with the PS4 games.

`

P.S.: If you think I'm going to buy the whole statement claiming EA had nothing to do with the always-online DRM decision, think again!

Very well written post! I couldn't agree more it is like the industry is so insecure they have to force us to be social or else they are promoting anti-social killers. lol

They are trying to be social. But I don't think its a matter of trying to convince people that games encourage social behavior.

They want to convince investors and stockholders that their products will be profitable. And right now, social is the magic buzzword. Everyone saw the overwhelming success of Angry Birds and Farmville. Facebook stocks have been rising. Iphones have created an entire new and untouched market of gamers, much like how the Wiimote created an entire market for non-gamer families. AAA companies either want A) a slice of that big delicious social pie or B) convince stockholders and investors that by harnessing these social elements, their product will succeed. That is, investors could care less about gameplay and mechanics and whatnot. But they know what's hot, and they know what's profitable. And its true. Any AAA true gaming title which manages to harness the Farmville/Angrybird crowd will break the bank.

But Sim City was not the game to do it. Why? Mainly because of advertising. Their primary customers would be returning fans or hardcore gamers perousing the interent, not social gamers who happened to be on Origin one day.

They are trying to be social. But I don't think its a matter of trying to convince people that games encourage social behavior.

They want to convince investors and stockholders that their products will be profitable. And right now, social is the magic buzzword. Everyone saw the overwhelming success of Angry Birds and Farmville. Facebook stocks have been rising. Iphones have created an entire new and untouched market of gamers, much like how the Wiimote created an entire market for non-gamer families. AAA companies either want A) a slice of that big delicious social pie or B) convince stockholders and investors that by harnessing these social elements, their product will succeed. That is, investors could care less about gameplay and mechanics and whatnot. But they know what's hot, and they know what's profitable. And its true. Any AAA true gaming title which manages to harness the Farmville/Angrybird crowd will break the bank.

But Sim City was not the game to do it. Why? Mainly because of advertising. Their primary customers would be returning fans or hardcore gamers perousing the interent, not social gamers who happened to be on Origin one day.

Also lets not forget they tried simcity socially in the iOS and it crashed and burned spectacularly. So basically they took a failed idea and thought it would be a good idea to integrate it into the main platform for the game. lol

And this is why I support pirating. Probably going to get punished for that, but I give zero fucks. Always on DRM for single player games is the shittiest business model any company can possibly employ.

They are trying to be social. But I don't think its a matter of trying to convince people that games encourage social behavior.

They want to convince investors and stockholders that their products will be profitable. And right now, social is the magic buzzword. Everyone saw the overwhelming success of Angry Birds and Farmville. Facebook stocks have been rising. Iphones have created an entire new and untouched market of gamers, much like how the Wiimote created an entire market for non-gamer families. AAA companies either want A) a slice of that big delicious social pie or B) convince stockholders and investors that by harnessing these social elements, their product will succeed. That is, investors could care less about gameplay and mechanics and whatnot. But they know what's hot, and they know what's profitable. And its true. Any AAA true gaming title which manages to harness the Farmville/Angrybird crowd will break the bank.

But Sim City was not the game to do it. Why? Mainly because of advertising. Their primary customers would be returning fans or hardcore gamers perousing the interent, not social gamers who happened to be on Origin one day.

Also lets not forget they tried simcity socially in the iOS and it crashed and burned spectacularly. So basically they took a failed idea and thought it would be a good idea to integrate it into the main platform for the game. lol

>lie>be questioned>lie even more>proven you were a liar>pretend to suddenly be blunt and honest>blame everything on the corpse of a developer they danced around for easy money.

Stay classy, EA

Oh and if anyone doesn't know yet: Anyone who refers to any game or program as a "Vision" is completely full of shit and will only end up ripping you off or kill an IP. "Vision" is corporate jargon presenters like to use when they don't have anything real or new to say.

Earnest Cavalli:"But we rejected that idea because it didn't fit with our vision."

Translation: "EA wanted this thing to be online only and none of us wanted to lose our jobs."

Anyway, now that the cat's out of the bag maybe EA will relent and allow for the single-player patch. It still won't sell a copy of the game to me but it might make people like me stop saying mean things about Electronic Arts.

No. No. I will still say mean tings about them. They have sucked the life out of so many things I love. It would take so much for me to make a 180 about how I feel about them.

OT: The "Vision" was to wring as much pennies out of people as possible using this. With the Always Online people would not be able to mod the game to have the features EA want to sell us as DLC. They want to keep the Always online? Fine. Every piece of DLC best be completely free. If not remove it and let the modders have fun.

Xarathox:And this is why I support pirating. Probably going to get punished for that, but I give zero fucks. Always on DRM for single player games is the shittiest business model any company can possibly employ.

Want to stop piracy? stop trying to stop piracy.

Honestly please take that phony justice away. I actually respect people who are more upfront about their decisions because they don't try and justify they just say they are doing it and that is that. If you are going to go the P route so you can play the game without paying for it that is your decision as a person and I respect it even if I don't agree with it, but don't pretend it is apart of some pseudo-justified cause that will teach companies a lesson and that is the reason you decide to get a free copy.

That is exactly the argument that many fans in favor of an easy mode for dark souls used, then they got bashed for not respecting artistic integrity. Of course the difference being that this game is shit, and DS was great (in my opinion).

Easy Dark Souls is not a matter of artistic integrity. the problem is that a change in design philosophy can easily lead to a game that alienates the fans, as DA2, ME3, Diablo 3 and Sim City so aptly demonstrate.

Also, all those changes (including the easy mode in Dark Souls and always online DRM) are really not related to design vision. They are a sub-product of marketing, for better or worse (normally worse).

What a load of bull fucking shit. Stop wheeling out the developers to cover your huge money-grabbing ass EA. Hopefully more people will be like me and stop buying your games until you remedy your awful awful awful consumer fucking business models. As much as I love Mass Effect I still haven't played the third solely because of you EA and your fucking drm and dlc practices. Consumers please band together to send these assholes a message that we won't roll over and take this lying down.